Abstract
The protection of human rights in global supply chains has become one of the most hotly debated issues in public and private (international) law. In a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands, these debates have led to the introduction of domestic human rights legislation. In other countries reform plans are under way. In Germany, for example, the federal government recently announced plans to adopt a German Supply Chain Act, which, if passed as suggested, will introduce both mandatory human rights due diligence obligations and mandatory corporate liability provisions. The following article takes this announcement as an opportunity to look at the idea of a German Supply Chain Act from both a choice of law and from a comparative perspective. It argues that that any such Act will necessarily be limited in both its spatial and in its substantive reach and, therefore, recommends that Germany refrains from passing national legislation—and supports the adoption of a European instrument instead.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
See the press release available at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/mex_20_323.
- 7.
Human Rights Council, Elaboration of an international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, A/HRC/26/L.22/Rev. 1 (20. Juni 2014), abrufbar unter https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G14/058/99/PDF/G1405899.pdf?OpenElement. See De Schutter (2015), pp. 41 ff.
- 8.
Since its inception the Working Group has published three drafts, the most recent in August 2020. Second Revised Draft of 6 August 2020 “Legally Binding Instrument to Regulate, in International Human Rights Law, the Activities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises”, available at https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/Session6/OEIGWG_Chair-Rapporteur_second_revised_draft_LBI_on_TNCs_and_OBEs_with_respect_to_Human_Rights.pdf. Previous drafts date from 2018 and 2019 and are available at https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/Session3/DraftLBI.pdf and https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/OEIGWG_RevisedDraft_LBI.pdf.
- 9.
UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, pp. 13 ff., Principles No 11-24.
- 10.
UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, p. 1 (“Nothing in these Guiding Principles should be read as creating new international law obligations …”).
- 11.
See for an overview the list available at https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/NationalActionPlans.aspx.
- 12.
National Action Plan for Business and Human Rights. Implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights 2016–2020, English version available at https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/blob/610714/fb740510e8c2fa83dc507afad0b2d7ad/nap-wirtschaft-menschenrechte-engl-data.pdf.
- 13.
Ein neuer Aufbruch für Europa. Eine neue Dynamik für Deutschland. Ein neuer Zusammenhalt für unser Land—Koalitionsvertrag zwischen CDU, CSU und SPD, 19. Legislaturperiode (2018), p. 156, para. 7382 ff.
- 14.
National Action Plan for Business and Human Rights (note 12), p. 10.
- 15.
Monitoring of the status of implemention of the human rights due diligence obligations of enterprises set out in the National Action Plan for Business and Human Rights 2016–2020, Final Report (2020), p. 5, English version available at https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/blob/2417212/9c8158fe4c737426fa4d7217436accc7/201013-nap-monitoring-abschlussbericht-data.pdf.
- 16.
Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten eines Mantelgesetzes zur nachhaltigen Gestaltung globaler Wertschöpfungsketten und zur Änderung wirtschaftsrechtlicher Vorschriften (Nachhaltige Wertschöpfungskettengesetz—NaWKG) einschließlich eines Stammgesetzes zur Regelung menschenrechtlicher und umweltbezogener Sorgfaltspflichten in globalen Wertschöpfungsketten (Sorgfaltspflichtengesetz—SorgfaltspflichtenG), Draft of 1 February 2019 (on file with the author). See for a first appraisal Weller and Nasse (2020), pp. 120 ff.
- 17.
Entwurf für Eckpunkte eines Bundesgesetzes über die Stärkung der unternehmerischen Sorgfaltspflichten zur Vermeidung von Menschenrechtsverletzungen in globalen Wertschöpfungsketten (Sorgfaltspflichtengesetz), Draft of 10 March 2020 (on file with the author).
- 18.
Klinger et al. (2016).
- 19.
Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (“Rome II”) OJ 2007 L 199/40.
- 20.
- 21.
See—with regard to German private international law—Mansel (2018), pp. 452 f.
- 22.
See, for example, Dickinson (2017), p. 1564.
- 23.
- 24.
Case C-412/10, Homawoo, ECLI:EU:C:2011:747, para. 37; Dickinson (2017), p. 1563.
- 25.
Enneking (2017), p. 52; Kessedijan (2018), p. 149. In a similar vein Habersack and Ehrl (2019), pp. 189 f.; Thomale and Hübner (2017), p. 392 pointing to “reasons rooted in game theory and behavioural economics”. An implicit (partial) choice of German law was discussed—and rejected by both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal in the KiK case. See LG Dortmund, Judgment of 10 January 2019, ECLI:DE:LGDO:2019:0110.7O95.15.00, para. 42; OLG Hamm, Decision of 21 May 2019, ECLI:DE:OLGHAM:2019:0521.9U44.19.00, para. 16 ff.
- 26.
Recital 6. See for a critical appraisal Symeonides (2008), pp. 179 ff.
- 27.
- 28.
Enneking (2008), p. 300; Enneking (2009), p. 928; Enneking (2017), p. 50; Halfmeier (2018), p. 41; Kessedijan (2018), p. 149; Van Calster (2014), p. 130; Lehmann and Eichel (2019), p. 96; Rühl (2020a), pp. 97 f.; Van den Eeckhout (2012), pp. 189 f.; Van den Eeckhout (2017), pp. 50 f.; Wagner (2016), p. 744.
- 29.
- 30.
Demeyere (2015), pp. 388 f.; Enneking (2008), pp. 302 f.; Enneking (2009), p. 928; Enneking (2017), p. 53; Habersack and Ehrl (2019), pp. 188 f.; Kessedijan (2018), p. 149; Otero Carcá-Castrillón (2011), pp. 571 f.; Van den Eeckhout (2012), p. 191; Van den Eeckhout (2017), p. 53. In a similar vein Van Calster (2014), p. 131; Hartmann (2018), pp. 300 f.; Mansel (2018), pp. 462 f.
- 31.
Wagner (2016), pp. 744 f.
- 32.
Generally von Hein (2015b), p. 615, para. 18.
- 33.
- 34.
Enneking (2008), pp. 300 f.; Enneking (2017), pp. 51 f.; Habersack and Ehrl (2019), p. 185; Halfmeier (2018), p. 42; Stürner (2014), pp. 370 f.; Stürner (2015), p. 851; Van Calster (2014), p. 130; Van Dam (2011), p. 231. In a similar vein LG Dortmund, 10 January 2019, Az. 7–O 95/15, ECLI:DE:LGDO:2019:0110.7O95.15.00, para. 43; OLG Hamm, 21 May 2019, Az. 9 U 44/19, ECLI:DE:OLGHAM:2019:0521.9U44.19.00, para. 25.
- 35.
- 36.
Weller and Thomale (2017), p. 525.
- 37.
- 38.
- 39.
European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (“Rome II”), COM(2003)0427—C5-0338/2003—2003/0168(COD) of 6 July 005, P6_TA(2005)0284. See for a detailed discussion von Hein (2008a), pp. 560 ff.; von Hein (2008b), pp. 1685 f.; von Hein (2009) p. 18.
- 40.
See for a detailed discussion Enneking (2017), pp. 51 f.; Fulli-Lemaire (2019), p. 251; Halfmeier (2018), p. 42; Mansel (2018), pp. 455 ff.; Pförtner (2018), pp. 324 f.; Stürner (2015), pp. 850 f.; Van den Eeckhout (2012), pp. 190 f.; Wagner (2016), pp. 740 f; Weller et al. (2016), pp. 393 f.; Wendelstein (2019), pp. 141 ff.
- 41.
Habersack and Ehrl (2019), p. 185; Halfmeier (2018), p. 41; Garcimartín Alférez (2007), p. I-84 and p. 566; Mansel (2018), p. 456; Pförtner (2018), pp. 324 f.; Rühl (2020a), pp. 101 ff.; Stone (2015), p. 303; Stürner (2015), p. 850. In a similar vein Enneking (2008), pp. 301 f., Enneking (2017), pp. 51 f. and—with regard to the French Loi de vigilance—Palombo (2019), p. 280.
- 42.
- 43.
- 44.
- 45.
- 46.
- 47.
§ 15 reads: “In the context of non-contractual liability claims, the obligations under §§ 4 to 10 govern the due diligence requirements to be observed, without regard to the law applicable to the non-contractual obligation under private international law.”
- 48.
Entwurf für Eckpunkte eines Sorgfaltspflichtengesetz (note 17), p. 4, at 3. b).
- 49.
Recital 7 calls for consistent interpretation of the Rome I and II Regulations.
- 50.
Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable too contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ L 177/6.
- 51.
Case C-149/18 Da Silva Martins, ECLI:EU:C:2019:84, para. 27 ff.
- 52.
Case C-184/12 Unamar, ECLI:EU:C:2013:663, para. 41 ff.; CJEU, case C-149/18, Da Silva Martins, ECLI:EU:C:2019:84, para. 30 f.
- 53.
Case C-184/12 Unamar, ECLI:EU:C:2013:663, para. 46.
- 54.
- 55.
- 56.
- 57.
Case C-135/15 Nikiforidis, ECLI:EU:C:2016:774.
- 58.
Ibid para. 55.
- 59.
- 60.
Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups, OJ 2014 L 330/1.
- 61.
Modern Slavery Act 2015, ch. 30.
- 62.
Regulation (EU) 2017/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 laying down supply chain due diligence obligations for Union importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold originating from conflict-affected and high-risk areas, OJ 2017 L 330/1. See Fleischer and Hahn (2018), p. 400; Habersack and Ehrl (2019), pp. 178 f.
- 63.
Wet van 24 oktober 2019 houdende de invoering van een zorgplicht ter voorkoming van de levering van goederen en diensten die met behulp van kinderarbeid tot stand zijn gekomen, Staatsblad 2019, 401. An unofficial English translation is available at https://www.ropesgray.com/en/newsroom/alerts/2019/06/Dutch-Child-Labor-Due-Diligence-Act-Approved-by-Senate-Implications-for-Global-Companies.
- 64.
Loi No. 399/2017 du 23 mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d’ordre, JO du 28 mars 2017.
- 65.
See for a very good overview the information and documents prepared by the Swiss Federal Agency of Justice (Bundesamt für Justiz), available at https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/de/home/wirtschaft/gesetzgebung/konzernverantwortungsinitiative.html.
- 66.
See the press release of the Swiss Government of 1 July 2020, available at https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen/bundesrat.msg-id-79692.html.
- 67.
- 68.
See the preliminary results available at https://www.bk.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/va/20201129/index.html.
- 69.
See also the press release of the Swiss Parliament of 9 June 2020, available at https://www.parlament.ch/de/services/news/Seiten/2020/20200609090519598194158159041_bsd048.aspx.
- 70.
A concise comparison of the original proposal submitted by the Responsible Business Initiative and the counter-proposal of the Swiss Parliament is available at https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/de/home/wirtschaft/gesetzgebung/konzernverantwortungsinitiative.html.
- 71.
More detailed information available at https://www.business-humanrights.org/de und https://www.ecchr.eu.
- 72.
- 73.
The full French text is available at www.legifrance.gouv.fr. An unofficial English translated can be found at https://corporatejustice.org/documents/publications/ngo-translation-french-corporate-duty-of-vigilance-law.pdf.
- 74.
Rühl (2020b), pp. 1420 f.; Mansel (2018), p. 445; Nasse (2019), pp. 798 f. See, however, d’Avout (2017), p. 2061 who argues that only the liability rule of Article L. 225-102-5 CCom can be classified as tortious, while he assumes that the obligation to establish, publish and implement a vigilance plan embodied in Article 225-102-4 CCom belongs to company law.
- 75.
- 76.
Assemblée nationale XIVe législature, Session ordinaire de 2014–2015, Première séance du lundi 30 mars 2015, Discussion to Amendment No. 18, available at http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/cri/2014-2015/20150193.asp#P490680.
- 77.
- 78.
See the rapporteur’s answer to Amendment No. 18: “… ils sont satisfaits car ce qu’ils proposent est inclus non seulement dans l’esprit mais dans le texte de la proposition de loi.”
- 79.
- 80.
That the Loi de vigilance only covers companies with registered seat does not follow from the wording of Article L. 225-102-4 I CCom, but was confirmed immediately after adoption of the law through the French Constitutional Council. See Conseil constitutionnel, Décision no 2017-750 DC du 23 mars 2017, para. 3, available at https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2017/2017750DC.htm.
- 81.
- 82.
- 83.
- 84.
CCFD-Terre Solidaire and Sherpa (2019), p. 10.
- 85.
Rühl (2020b), pp. 1422 ff.
- 86.
- 87.
- 88.
- 89.
See for a detailed discussion Rühl (2011), pp. 655 f. (with further references).
- 90.
See for a detailed presentation of the legislative history Petitjean (2019).
- 91.
- 92.
- 93.
See, for example, Nordhues (2019), pp. 319 ff.
- 94.
Rühl (2020a), pp. 123 ff.; Rühl (2020b), pp. 1431 f; Equally skeptical Bueno (2020), p. 244 (with regard to Swiss law); Wagner (2016), p. 781; Sykes (2012), p. 2197 (with regard to the Alien Tort Claims Act). See also Geistfeld (2019), pp. 142 ff., 144 f. who generally doubts that liability claims of the victims can set incentive to protect human rights and who, therefore, suggests to allow consumers in the Global North to sue companies for damages if they fail to comply with human rights relation information obligations.
- 95.
See for a detailed empirical analysis of the costs that various types of regulation might incur British Institute of International and Comparative Law et al. (2020), Final Report, pp. 290 ff., especially 401 ff. as well as Synthesis Report, pp. 65 ff.
- 96.
- 97.
Note that the use of contractual clauses and codes of conduct is already the most frequently used due diligence action which companies undertake to prevent, mitigate or remedy adverse human rights and environmental impacts in their supply chains. See British Institute of International and Comparative Law et al. (2020), Final Report, p. 152 and Synthesis Report, p. 15.
- 98.
- 99.
- 100.
- 101.
- 102.
On this point Sykes (2012), pp. 2195 f. who notes that the Canadian company Talisman Energy was replaced by a Chinese company—after Talisman Energy had decided to withdraw from Sudan out of fear to be suit in den US on the basis of the Alien Tort Claims Act. See, however, Stiglitz (2011), pp. 10 ff., who considers these fears to be exaggerated and without empirical basis. Equally sceptical Keitner (2012), pp. 2214, 2215 f.
- 103.
- 104.
See for an empirical analysis of the potential effects of regulation at EU level British Institute of International and Comparative Law et al. (2020), Final Report, pp. 142 ff. and Synthesis Report, pp. 19 f.
- 105.
If adopted as regulation the provisions of a European instrument will apply as uniform international law that make the determination of the applicable law obsolete. If adopted as directive its national implementing provisions will qualify as overriding mandatory provision in the meaning of Article 16 Rome II Regulation in all Member States.
- 106.
See generally on the effect of a European instrument on competition empirical analysis of British Institute of International and Comparative Law et al. (2020), Final Report, pp. 438 ff. as well as Synthesis Report, pp. 67 f.
- 107.
In a similar vein British Institute of International and Comparative Law et al. (2020), Final Report, pp. 549 and 558 and Synthesis Report, pp. 70 f.
- 108.
See http://corporatejustice.org/news/132-members-of-8-european-parliaments-support-duty-of-care-legislation-for-eu-corporations. See also the response of the European Commission in its Annual Report on Relations between the European Commission and National Parliaments, COM(2017) 601 final, p. 10.
- 109.
Resolution of the European Parliament of 25 October 2016 on corporate liability for serious human rights abuses in third countries (2015/2315(INI)), P8_TA(2016)0405; Resolution of the European Parliament of 12 September 2017 on the impact of international trade and the EU’s trade policies on global value chains (2016/2301(INI)), P8_TA (2017)0330.
- 110.
For more information on the group see https://responsiblebusinessconduct.eu.
- 111.
Shadow EU Action Plan on the Implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights within the EU, available at https://responsiblebusinessconduct.eu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SHADOW-EU-Action-Plan-on-Business-and-Human-Rights.pdf.
- 112.
JURI Committee of the European Parliament, Draft Report with recommendations to the Commission on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability (2020/2129(INL)).
References
Arif Y (2011) Overriding mandatory provisions and administrative authorisations according to the Rome II Regulation. Eur Leg Forum 11(3-4):113–122
Barsan I (2017) Corporate accountability: non-financial disclosure and liability – a French perspective. Eur Company Financ Law Rev 14(3):399–434
Bartling B, Weber RA, Yao L (2015) Do markets erode social responsibility? Q J Econ 130(2):219–266
Bohrer A (2018) Die Haftung schweizerischer Unternehmen für Menschenrechtsverletzungen im Ausland? Überlegungen zur “Konzern-Initiative”. In: Fleischer H et al (eds) Corporate social responsibility. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 195–212
Boskovic O (2016) Brèves remarques sur le devoir de vigilance et le droit international privé. Recueil Dalloz 2016:385–387
Brabant S, Savourey E (2017a) Scope of the law corporate duty of vigilance. Companies subject to the vigilance obligations. Revue Internationale de la Compliance et de l’Éthique des Affaires, Étude 92:1–8. http://www.bhrinlaw.org/frenchcorporatedutylaw_articles.pdf
Brabant S, Savourey E (2017b) A closer look at the penalites faced by companies. Revue Internationale de la Compliance et de l’Éthique des Affaires, Commentaires: 1–5. http://www.bhrinlaw.org/frenchcorporatedutylaw_articles.pdf
British Institute of International and Comparative Law et al (2020) Study on due diligence requirements through the supply chains. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/8ba0a8fd-4c83-11ea-b8b7-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
Bueno N (2020) The Swiss popular initiative on responsible business. From responsibility to liability. In: Enneking L, Giesen I, Schaap AJ et al (eds) Accountability, international business operations, and the law. Providing justice for corporate human rights violations in global value chains. Routledge, London, pp 239–258
CCFD-Terre Solidaire and Sherpa (2019) Le radar du devoir de vigilance. Identifier les entreprises soumises à la loi. https://plan-vigilance.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019-06-26-Radar-DDV-16-pages-Web.pdf.
Conseil général de l’économie (2020) Evaluation de la mise en oeuvre de la loi n° 2017-399 du 27 mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d’ordre. https://www.economie.gouv.fr/files/files/directions_services/cge/devoirs-vigilances-entreprises.pdf
D’Avout L (2017) Devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et “entreprise onneuses d’ordre”. Recueil Dalloz 2017:2060–2062
Danis-Fatôme A, Viney G (2017) La responsabilité civile dans la loi relative au devoir de vigilance ds sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d’ordre. Recueil Dalloz 2017:1610–1618
Daoud D, Sfoggia S (2019) Les entreprises face aux premiers contentieux de la loi sur le devoir de vigilance. Revue des Juristes de Sciences Po No. 16:95–101
De Schutter O (2015) Towards a new treaty on business and human rights. Bus Hum Rights J 1(1):41–67
Demeyere S (2015) Liability of a mother company for its subsidiary in French, Belgian, and English law. Eur Rev Private Law 23(3):385–413
Dickinson A (2017) Rome II Regulation (non-contractual obligations). In: Basedow J, Rühl G, Ferrari F, de Miguel Asensio P (eds) Encyclopedia of private international law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 1562–1574
Dowling P (2020) Limited liability and separate corporate personality in multinational corporate groups. Conceptual flaws, accountability gaps, and the case for profit-risk liability. In: Enneking L, Giesen I, Schaap AJ et al (eds) Accountability, international business operations, and the law. Providing justice for corporate human rights violations in global value chains. Routledge, London, pp 219–238
Enneking L (2008) The common denominator of the Trafigura case, foreign direct liability cases and the Rome II Regulation. An essay on the consequences of private international law for the feasibility of regulating multinational corporations through tort law. Eur Private Int Law 16(2):283–311
Enneking L (2009) Crossing the Atlantic? The political and legal feasibility of European Foreign Direct liability cases. George Wash Int Law Rev 40(4):903–938
Enneking L (2017) Judicial remedies: the issue of applicable law. In: Álvarez Rubio JJ, Yiannibas K (eds) Human rights in business. Routledge, London, pp 38–77
Fleischer H, Danninger N (2017) Konzernhaftung für Menschenrechtsverletzungen – Französische und schweizerische Reformen als Regelungsvorbilder für Deutschland. Der Betrieb 70(48):2849–2857
Fleischer H, Hahn J (2018) Berichtspflichten über menschenrechtliche Standards in der Lieferkette. Eine internationale Bestandsaufnahme. Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 64(7):397–405
Fulli-Lemaire S (2019) Grappling with (global supply) chains: transnational human rights litigation in the agribusiness sector. In: Muir Watt H, Bíziková L, Brandão de Oliveira A, Fernández Arroyo DP (eds) Global private international law, adjudication without frontiers. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 244–254
Garcimartín Alférez F (2007) The Rome II Regulation: on the way towards a European Private International Law Code. Eur Leg Forum 7(3): I-77–I-91
Geistfeld M (2019) The law an economics of tort liability for human rights violations in global supply chains. J Eur Tort Law 10(2):130–165
Grabosch R (2013) Rechtsschutz vor deutschen Zivilgerichten gegen Beeinträchtigung von Menschenrechten durch transnationalen Unternehmen. In: Nikol R, Bernhard T, Schniederjahn N (eds) Transnationale Unternehmen und Nichtegierungsorganisationen im Völkerrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 69–100
Habersack M, Ehrl M (2019) Verantwortlichkeit inländischer Unternehmen für Menschenrechtsverletzungen durch ausländische Zulieferer – de lege lata und de lege ferenda. Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 219(2):155–210
Halfmeier A (2015) Article 3 Rome II. In: Calliess GP (ed) Rome regulations, 2nd edn. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 490–494
Halfmeier A (2018) Zur Rolle des Kollisionsrechts bei der zivilrechtlichen Haftung für Menschenrechtsverletzungen. In: Krajewski M, Oehm F, Saage-Maaß M (eds) Zivil- und strafrechtliche Unternehmensverantwortung für Menschenrechtsverletzungen. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 33–50
Handschin L (2017) Konzernverantwortungsinitiative: Gesellschaftsrechtliche Aspekte. Aktuelle Juristische Praxis 26(8):1000–1004
Hannoun C (2017) Le devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et entreprises donneuses d’ordre après la loi du 27 mars 2017. Droit social 2017(10):806–818
Hartmann C (2018) Haftung von Unternehmen für Menschenrechtsverletzungen im Ausland aus Sicht des Internationalen Privat- und Zivilverfahrensrechts. In: Krajewski M, Saage-Maaß M (eds) Die Durchsetzung menschenrechtlicher Sorgfaltspflichten von Unternehmen. Baden-Baden, Nomos, pp 281–310
Heinen A (2018) Auf dem Weg zu einem transnationalen Deliktsrecht? – Zur Begründung deliktischer Sorgfalts- und Organisationspflichten in globalen Wertschöpfungsketten. In: Krajewski M, Saage-Maaß M (eds) Die Durchsetzung menschenrechtlicher Sorgfaltspflichten von Unternehmen. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 87–124
Hoffberger E (2017) Das französische Gesetz über die menschenrechtliche due diligence von Muttergesellschaften und Auftrag gebenden Unternehmen. Archiv des Völkerrechts 55(4):465–486
Jazottes G (2018) Sous-traitance et “relation commerciale établie” au sens de l’article L. 442-6 du code de commerce: quelle pertinence pour le plan de vigilance. Revue Lamy Droit des Affaires No. 139(1):28–31
Kaufmann C (2016) Konzernverantwortungsinitiative: Grenzenlose Verantwortlichkeit. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Finanzmarktrecht 88(1):45–54
Keitner C (2012) Response: optimizing liability for extraterritorial torts: a response to Professor Sykes. Georgetown Law J 100(6):2211–2216
Kessedijan C (2018) Implementing the UN principles on business and human rights in private international law: European perspectives. In: Zamora Cabot FJ, Heckendorn Urscheler L, De Dycker S (eds) Implementing the UN guiding principles on business and human rights: private international law perspectives. Schulthess, Zürich, pp 141–152
Kimeldorf H, Meyer R, Prasad M, Robinson I (2006) Consumers with a conscience: will they pay more? Contexts 5(1):24–29
Klinger R, Krajewski M, Krebs D, Hartmann C (2016) Verankerung menschenrechtlicher Sorgfaltspflichten von Unternehmen im deutschen Recht
Lehmann M, Eichel F (2019) Globaler Klimawandel und Internationales Privatrecht. Zuständigkeit und anzuwendendes Recht für transnationale Klagen wegen klimawandelbedingter Individualschäden. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 83(1):77–110
Leible S, Lehmann M (2007) Die neue EG-Verordnung über das auf außervertragliche Schuldverhältnisses anzuwendende Recht (“Rom II”). Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 53(10):721–735
Littenberg MR, Binder NV (2019) Corporate social responsibility disclosure and compliance: an overview of selected legislation, guidance and voluntary initiatives. https://www.ropesgray.com/en/newsroom/alerts/2019/10/Corporate-Social-Responsibility-Disclosure-and-Compliance
Mankowski P (2019) Internationales Privatrecht II, 2nd edn. C.H. Beck, Munich
Mansel HP (2018) Internationales Privatecht de lege lata wie de lege ferenda und Menschenrechtsverantwortlichkeit deutscher Unternehmen. Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht 47(2-3):439–478
Marx M, Bright C, Wouters J et al (2019) Access to legal remedies for victims of corporate human rights abuses in third countries. Study for the European Parliament’s Sub-Committee on Human Rights
Métais P, Valette E (2019) Le devoir de vigilance et les enjeux en matière de resposabilité civile. Revue Lamy Droit des Affaires No. 153:49–52
Nasse L (2019) Die neue Sorgfaltspflicht zur Menschenrechtsverantwortung für Großunternehmen in Frankreich. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 27(4):774–802
Nordhues S (2019) Die Haftung der Muttergesellschaft und ihres Vorstands für Menschenrechtsverletzungen im Konzern. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Otero Carcá-Castrillón C (2011) International litigation trends in environmental liability: a European Union-United States comparative perspective. J Private Int Law 7(3):551–581
Palombo D (2019) The duty of care of the parent company: a comparison between French Law, UK precedents and the Swiss proposals. Bus Hum Rights J 4(2):264–286
Parance B, Groulx E (2018) Regard croisés sur le devoir de vigilance et le duty of care. Journal de droit international (Clunet) 145(1):21–52
Pataut E (2017) Le devoir de vigilance. Aspects de droit international privé. Droit social 2017(10):833–839
Périn PL (2015) Devoir de vigilance et responsabilité illimitée des entreprises: qui trop embrasse mal étreint. Revue trimestrielle de droit commercial 2015(2):215–224
Petitjean O (2019) Devoir de vigilance. Une victoire contre l’impunité des multinationals. Editions Charles Léopold Mayer, Paris
Pförtner F (2018) Menschenrechtliche Sorgfaltspflichten für Unternehmen – eine Betrachtung aus kollisionsrechtlicher Perspektive. In: Krajewski M, Saage-Maaß M (eds) Die Durchsetzung menschenrechtlicher Sorgfaltspflichten von Unternehmen. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 311–331
Renaud J, Quairel F, Gagnier S et al (2019) The law on duty of vigilance of parent and outsourcing companies. Year 1: Companies must do better
Rühl G (2011) Statut und Effizienz. Ökonomische Grundlagen des Internationalen Privatrechts. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Rühl G (2020a) Unternehmensverantwortung und (Internationales) Privatrecht. In: Reinisch A, Hobe S, Kieninger EM et al (eds) Unternehmensverantwortung und Internationales Recht. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg, pp 89–132
Rühl G (2020b) Die Haftung von Unternehmen für Menschenrechtsverletzungen: Die französische Loi de vigilance als Vorbild für ein deutsches Wertschöpfungskettengesetz? In: Bachmann G, Grundmann S, Mengel A et al (eds) Festschrift für Christine Windbichler. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 1413–1434
Spitzer M (2019) Human rights, global supply chains, and the role of tort. J Eur Tort Law 10(2):95–107
Stiglitz JE (2011) Brief as Amicus Curiae in support of petitioners, Mohamad et al v. Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization, Kiobel et al v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, United States Supreme Court, Nos. 11-88 and 10-1491. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-1491_petitioner_amcu_stiglitz.pdf
Stone P (2015) Choice of law for tort claims. In: Stone P, Farah Y (eds) Research handbook on EU private international law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 285–314
Stürner M (2014) Transnationale Menschenrechtsverletzungen im Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrecht. Int J Procedural Law 4(2):350–374
Stürner M (2015) Zur Rolle des Kollisionsrechts bei der Durchsetzung von Menschenrechten. In: Hilbig-Lugani K, Jacobs D, Mäsch G et al (eds) Festschrift für Dagmar Coester-Waltjen. Gieseking, Bielefeld, pp 843–854
Sykes AO (2012) Corporate liability for extraterritorial torts under the Alien Tort Statue and beyond: an economic analysis. Georgetown Law J 100(6):2161–2209
Symeonides S (2008) Rome II: a missed opportunity. Am J Comp Law 56(2):173–222
Thomale C, Hübner L (2017) Zivilgerichtliche Durchsetzung völkerrechtlicher Unternehmensverantwortung. JuristenZeitung 72(8):385–397
Van Calster G (2014) The role of private international law in corporate social responsibility. Erasmus Law Rev 8(3):125–144
Van Dam C (2011) Tort law and human rights: brothers in arms. On the role of tort law in the area of business and human rights. J Eur Tort Law 2(3):221–254
Van den Eeckhout V (2012) Corporate human rights violations and private international law. Contemp Readings Law Soc Just 4(2):178–207
Van den Eeckhout V (2017) The private international law dimension of the principles in Europe. In: Zamora Cabot FJ, Heckendorn Urscheler L, De Dycker S (eds) Implementing the UN guiding principles on business and human rights: private international law perspectives. Schulthess, Zürich, pp 37–62
Van Hoek AAH (2008) Transnational corporate social responsibility: some issues with regard to the liability of European corporations for labour law infringements in the countries of establishment of their suppliers. In: Pennings F, Konijn Y, Veldman A (eds) Social responsibility in labour relations: European and comparative perspectives. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 147–169
von Hein J (2008a) Die Ausweichklausel im europäischen Internationalen Deliktsrecht. In: Baetge D, von Hein J, von Hinden M (eds) Die richtige Ordnung. Festschrift für Jan Kropholler. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 553–571
von Hein J (2008b) Something old and something borrowed, but nothing new? Rome II and the European choice-of-law evolution. Tulane Law Rev 82(5):1663–1707
von Hein J (2009) Europäisches Internationales Deliktsrecht nach der Rom II-Verordnung. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 17(1):6–33
von Hein J (2015a) Article 4 Rome II. In: Calliess GP (ed) Rome regulations, 2nd edn. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 495–534
von Hein J (2015b) Article 7 Rome II. In: Calliess GP (ed) Rome regulations, 2nd edn. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 603–625
von Hein J (2015c) Article 16 Rome II. In: Calliess GP (ed) Rome regulations, 2nd edn. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 729–740
von Hein J (2015d) Article 17 Rome II. In: Calliess GP (ed) Rome regulations, 2nd edn. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 741–759
Wagner G (2008) Die neue Rom II-Verordnung. Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 28(1):1–17
Wagner G (2016) Haftung für Menschenrechtsverletzungen. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 80(4):717–782
Weller MP, Nasse L (2020) Menschenrechtsarbitrage als Gefahrenquelle. Systemkohärenz einer Verkehrspflicht zur Menschenrechtssicherung in Lieferketten. Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht, Sonderheft 22:107–140
Weller M, Pato A (2018) Local parents as ‘anchor defendants’ in European courts for claims against their foreign subsidiaries in human rights and environmental damages litigation: recent case law and legislative trends. Uniform Law Rev 23:397–413
Weller MP, Thomale C (2017) Menschenrechtsklagen gegen deutsche Unternehmen. Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht 46(4):509–526
Weller MP, Kaller L, Schulz A (2016) Haftung deutscher Unternehmen für Menschenrechtsverletzungen im Ausland. Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 216(3-4):387–420
Wendelstein C (2019) “Menschenrechtliche” Verhaltenspflichten im System des Internationalen Privatrecht. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 83(1):111–153
Werro F (2019) The Swiss responsible business initiative and the counter-proposal. J Eur Tort Law 10(2):166–182
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rühl, G. (2020). Towards a German Supply Chain Act? Comments from a Choice of Law and a Comparative Perspective. In: Bungenberg, M., Krajewski, M., Tams, C.J., Terhechte, J.P., Ziegler, A.R. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2020. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 11. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2020_61
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2020_61
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-59070-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-59071-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)